On 3 Apr 2014, at 6:51 pm, Саша Александров wrote:
> Hi, all!
>
> I set up the latest clustering sftware versions from CentOS 6.5 repo
> (pacemaker 1.1.10 + pcs + drbd 8.4.4) on a two-node cluster.
>
> pcs constraint show
> Location Constraints:
> Ordering Constraints:
> promote ms_u01 then
On 4 Apr 2014, at 6:55 pm, Attila Megyeri wrote:
> Hi Lars,
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Lars Marowsky-Bree [mailto:l...@suse.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2014 2:59 PM
>> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
>> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] failed actions are not removed
>>
Hi Keisuke,
Thanks a lot!
Regards,
Naoya
> Anzai-san,
>
> Thank you very much for pointing it out.
>
> Yes, you are right.
> I have updated the wiki page and should be fixed now.
>
> Regards,
> Keisuke MORI
>
>
> 2014-04-08 11:15 GMT+09:00 Naoya Anzai :
> > Hi,All
> >
> > I'm reading follo
Anzai-san,
Thank you very much for pointing it out.
Yes, you are right.
I have updated the wiki page and should be fixed now.
Regards,
Keisuke MORI
2014-04-08 11:15 GMT+09:00 Naoya Anzai :
> Hi,All
>
> I'm reading following wiki:
> http://clusterlabs.org/mwiki/index.php?title=PgSQL_Replicated_
On 08/04/14 10:31 PM, Campbell, Gene wrote:
Yeah, sorry, been a long day. Basically, I replied to this question, so I
could reuse the ML address, but then intended to change the subject. I
figured it made no sense as a post to this thread, so I resent the way I
had intended.
Sorry for the conf
Yeah, sorry, been a long day. Basically, I replied to this question, so I
could reuse the ML address, but then intended to change the subject. I
figured it made no sense as a post to this thread, so I resent the way I
had intended.
Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully these messages will settle.
Why did you re-ask the same question as a reply to the first question?
You stonith is still failing.
On 08/04/14 05:24 PM, Campbell, Gene wrote:
Hello fine folks in Pacemaker land. Hopefully you could share your insight
into this little problem for us.
We have a intermittent problem with fa
Hi Chris and Gene.
Thanks for your response.
> >Which version of the pcs rpm are you using? (rpm -q pcs)
I had previously used pcs-0.9.44-5.fc20.x86_64.rpm , but
that version was not implemented "expression rule".
so I downloaded pcs-0.9.115 at https://github.com/feist/pcs/releases,
I built it
Hello fine folks in Pacemaker land. Hopefully you could share your insight
into this little problem for us.
We have a intermittent problem with failover.
two node cluster
first node power is cut
failover begins to second node
first node reboots
crm_mon -1 on the rebooted node is PENDING (neve
Hi, thanks for the response. Please see inline replies.
Note, this is part of an automated test. It normal works, but will
usually file 1 in 20 tries for me.
The point is that it¹s intermittent.
Gene
On 4/8/14, 3:38 PM, "Chris Feist" wrote:
>On 03/24/2014 08:55 PM, Naoya Anzai wrote:
>> Hi
On 03/24/2014 08:55 PM, Naoya Anzai wrote:
Hi all,
I'm using pcs 0.9.115 on fedora 20.
Which version of the pcs rpm are you using? (rpm -q pcs)
This issues has been recently been fixed, but there may not yet be a fedora
build.
Thanks,
Chris
---
[root@saturn ~]# pcs --version
0.9.115
[ro
Looks like your fencing (stonith) failed.
On 08/04/14 05:25 PM, Campbell, Gene wrote:
Hello fine folks in Pacemaker land. Hopefully you could share your insight
into this little problem for us.
We have a intermittent problem with failover.
two node cluster
first node power is cut
failover b
Hello fine folks in Pacemaker land. Hopefully you could share your insight
into this little problem for us.
We have a intermittent problem with failover.
two node cluster
first node power is cut
failover begins to second node
first node reboots
crm_mon -1 on the rebooted node is PENDING (neve
Interesting idea! I can confirm that this works. So, I need to monitor the
output of "crm_node -q" to check if the current partition has quorum. If
the partition doesn't have quorum, I need to set the location constraint
according to your example. If the partition gets quorum again, I need to
remov
Well, I guess it would be okay to stop the resource when pacemaker stops,
but the resource should never stop on quorum loss. This is what I wanted to
say.
2014-04-08 2:51 GMT+02:00 Andrew Beekhof :
>
> On 7 Apr 2014, at 5:54 pm, Christian Ciach wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am using Corosync 2.
15 matches
Mail list logo